Timminz wrote:What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

I don't understand this at all, because I have never felt anything similar. To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation in order to keep doing it.

I don't mean that to be a slight upon you personally (or any others who feel the same way), I just honestly have no basis for comparison. Is it because you'd be shunned by friends and family?

I guess that means your opinion is that my participation at mass as a parishoner means I support (financially, morally, and otherwise) child molestation. I can't really wrap my mind around that and perhaps that's where the discussion should go. It is not really a personal attack, I suppose, because you really don't have a basis for comparison. But I can maybe help with that.

There are numerous instances in history and right now where people directly or indirectly financially (or otherwise) supported immoral acts. I've noted only one other above. There does not seem to be the same outrage or the same accusations of supporting some horrible act. In some instances, there are even defenses of these positions.

For example, you will rarely hear or see a reasonable individual, such as yourself, say or type something like that "To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation [by going to Penn State University] or murder of innocent civilians [by voting for either presidential candidate] or torture [by voting for either presidential candidate]."

PLAYER57832 wrote:The issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church vests a lot of its power in the idea that priests.. and then Bishops and ultimately the Pope are not just more learned people, but actually better people, closer to God than average folk.

In one sense, that means that parishoners have little responsibility for the views of leadership, because they are not truly free to object and debate. Instead, it might point to reasons why they might turn their backs on the church (which many have), but that is a very, very difficult issue. On the other hand, every Christian, even within the Roman Catholic church has not just the right, but the obligation to point out and stand against repeated sinning, evil. There is a process for that, (not getting into that) that differs from in standard society, but it is there. So, basically, parishoners have an obligation to lovingly and Biblically challenge their church to do what is right. However, that does not necessarily mean they have to or should publically condemn the church in any real way.

(note.. I do draw a definite distinction between the response necessary after all this has happened, particularly to the leadership that is guilty of improperly dealig with the events versus anyone who was in a position to directly observe, know and possibly intervene. ANYONE must intervene directly and immediately in any way they can to protect a child.)

I think there is some truth to the idea that priests are given deference, but they are also held to higher standards than laypeople by laypeople. Whether it's an American exceptionalism thing or not, American priests tend to be beholden to parishoners rather than the other way around. In other words, I think American Catholics understand that priests, bishops, and the pope are human beings, not divine by nature of their jobs.

I'm also sort of getting annoyed with this somewhat prevelant idea that Catholic parishoners cannot or do not or would not object to anything the Church does. I have seen many public condemnations of Philadelphia-area priests by Catholic parishoners. I have engaged in some of these myself. I don't know if this is a Philadelphia thing or an American thing or what, but there has been and will continue to be criticism here about the Church's protection of alleged pedophiles in the priesthood.

I fully understand that individual Roman Catholics can and do disagree with what the church teaches. As one commentor noted, just look at the numbers of kids people have and you can see that not everyone agrees with the stance on birth control, for example. (her words, not mine). I absolutely and unequivocably understand that essentially all Roman Catholics (except the guilty.. and perhaps not even them) abhore the activities of a few priests.

My issue is that the church's problems with pedophilia and some other issues are inherent to the structure of the church. However, as a non-Roman Catholic, I have rejected that whole structure anyway. I know plenty of people who hold to it, who feel that the Roman Catholic church is the "true" church. I don't really want to get into that whole debate here, nor do I think you do, at least right now. However, the other side to the structure, follow the hierarchy "coin" is that there is more of a tendency to condemn the whole church, rather than, say, just one congregation or group. I think that is what you are seeing. Also, there are plenty of people who just want any excuse to condemn churches.

jonesthecurl wrote:And please, disgruntled Catholics, don't split from the Church and set up yet another Christian sect for us to argue with!

I'm not sure which Catholics you're arguing with, but most of the Catholics I associate with are not antithetical to evolution. Obviously, there are some examples of Catholics that are (Santorum comes to mind).

I believe there are quite a few issues of debate amongst Christians other than evolution.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church vests a lot of its power in the idea that priests.. and then Bishops and ultimately the Pope are not just more learned people, but actually better people, closer to God than average folk.

In one sense, that means that parishoners have little responsibility for the views of leadership, because they are not truly free to object and debate. Instead, it might point to reasons why they might turn their backs on the church (which many have), but that is a very, very difficult issue. On the other hand, every Christian, even within the Roman Catholic church has not just the right, but the obligation to point out and stand against repeated sinning, evil. There is a process for that, (not getting into that) that differs from in standard society, but it is there. So, basically, parishoners have an obligation to lovingly and Biblically challenge their church to do what is right. However, that does not necessarily mean they have to or should publically condemn the church in any real way.

(note.. I do draw a definite distinction between the response necessary after all this has happened, particularly to the leadership that is guilty of improperly dealig with the events versus anyone who was in a position to directly observe, know and possibly intervene. ANYONE must intervene directly and immediately in any way they can to protect a child.)

I think there is some truth to the idea that priests are given deference, but they are also held to higher standards than laypeople by laypeople. Whether it's an American exceptionalism thing or not, American priests tend to be beholden to parishoners rather than the other way around. In other words, I think American Catholics understand that priests, bishops, and the pope are human beings, not divine by nature of their jobs.

I'm also sort of getting annoyed with this somewhat prevelant idea that Catholic parishoners cannot or do not or would not object to anything the Church does. I have seen many public condemnations of Philadelphia-area priests by Catholic parishoners. I have engaged in some of these myself. I don't know if this is a Philadelphia thing or an American thing or what, but there has been and will continue to be criticism here about the Church's protection of alleged pedophiles in the priesthood.

I fully understand that individual Roman Catholics can and do disagree with what the church teaches. As one commentor noted, just look at the numbers of kids people have and you can see that not everyone agrees with the stance on birth control, for example. (her words, not mine). I absolutely and unequivocably understand that essentially all Roman Catholics (except the guilty.. and perhaps not even them) abhore the activities of a few priests.

My issue is that the church's problems with pedophilia and some other issues are inherent to the structure of the church. However, as a non-Roman Catholic, I have rejected that whole structure anyway. I know plenty of people who hold to it, who feel that the Roman Catholic church is the "true" church. I don't really want to get into that whole debate here, nor do I think you do, at least right now. However, the other side to the structure, follow the hierarchy "coin" is that there is more of a tendency to condemn the whole church, rather than, say, just one congregation or group. I think that is what you are seeing. Also, there are plenty of people who just want any excuse to condemn churches.

I agree that the church's problems with protecting alleged pedophiles has to do with the hierarchical nature of the church (as well as the secrecy), but couldn't we say that for many other organizations?

Timminz wrote:What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

I don't understand this at all, because I have never felt anything similar. To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation in order to keep doing it.

I don't mean that to be a slight upon you personally (or any others who feel the same way), I just honestly have no basis for comparison. Is it because you'd be shunned by friends and family?

I guess that means your opinion is that my participation at mass as a parishoner means I support (financially, morally, and otherwise) child molestation. I can't really wrap my mind around that and perhaps that's where the discussion should go. It is not really a personal attack, I suppose, because you really don't have a basis for comparison. But I can maybe help with that.

There are numerous instances in history and right now where people directly or indirectly financially (or otherwise) supported immoral acts. I've noted only one other above. There does not seem to be the same outrage or the same accusations of supporting some horrible act. In some instances, there are even defenses of these positions.

For example, you will rarely hear or see a reasonable individual, such as yourself, say or type something like that "To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation [by going to Penn State University] or murder of innocent civilians [by voting for either presidential candidate] or torture [by voting for either presidential candidate]."

How many people within the leadership of an organization have to sexually abuse children (or protect those who do, from prosecution) before supporting that organization is seen as condoning the abuse, in some way?

thegreekdog wrote:Why have a war in the first place? An illegal war at that, one not approved or declared by Congress.

I always thought the notion of an "illegal" war was kind of funny. Whether or not the war was "illegal" is a matter for debate. (You might argue that the whole war powers act is unconstitutional if you want to go the full constitutional route.) Consider that Congress has both the power of the purse strings and the power of impeachment, I find that the "meh" attitude of congress no reason to hold the president guilty of not following the constitution.

I can't deny that the opinions that some people have of Catholic parishoners with respect to the child abuse cover up annoys me. I guess my question (which I probably didn't make clear in the last post) is that I do not understand the difference you make between Catholic parishoners and other members of other organizations. Why is the Catholic parishoner's only acceptable choice to leave the Catholic church? I'm not suggesting that the alternative is to accept and condone the cover-up and defense of alleged child abusers; after all, these abuses happened to parishoners and/or their children. I'm suggesting there are other alternatives that can be pursued. Apparently many others in the forum don't agree and I'm trying to figure out why they don't agree.

From my perspective leaving the Catholic Church would be akin to leaving my family or my country (I guess, although I'm not really a nationalist kind of guy)... perhaps leaving my wife would be an apt description as well. For me, it would be incredibly painful and difficult. I'm not sure I can explain it well enough for you to understand.

Timminz wrote:How many people within the leadership of an organization have to sexually abuse children (or protect those who do, from prosecution) before supporting that organization is seen as condoning the abuse, in some way?

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that the organization is currently condoning the abuse.

In 2002, the US Catholic Church established various guidelines around the issue, which, among other things, requires that when an allegation arises, the diocese is required to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation, and remove the accused priest from duty. Is there something else you would recommend be done?

The Vatican has also created guidelines, although I'm not as familiar with them.

Sorry, I didn't answer your question. I don't know what my answer is. Right now, US bishops have reported receiving allegations of abuse by 6,115 priests between 1950 and 2011 (5.6% of the 109,694 priests active in that time period).

Last edited by thegreekdog on Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thegreekdog wrote:Why have a war in the first place? An illegal war at that, one not approved or declared by Congress.

I always thought the notion of an "illegal" war was kind of funny. Whether or not the war was "illegal" is a matter for debate. (You might argue that the whole war powers act is unconstitutional if you want to go the full constitutional route.) Consider that Congress has both the power of the purse strings and the power of impeachment, I find that the "meh" attitude of congress no reason to hold the president guilty of not following the constitution.

I find the "meh" attitude of Congress to be as criminal as the president's activities. I probably should not have used the "illegal war" statement.

@ OP: Pretty much determined by how much power the relevant stakeholders wield. Pure democracy where each action or policy is taken to the vote: Population is responsible; Dictatorship where leaders make the decisions: Leaders are responsible.

The Church is pretty much exclusively the latter, where as US government is in a grey area somewhere between the two.

Timminz wrote:How many people within the leadership of an organization have to sexually abuse children (or protect those who do, from prosecution) before supporting that organization is seen as condoning the abuse, in some way?

Before even answering, you have to stop and remember just how far and how quickly thinking on these issues have changed. Society went from thinking this was a rare crime found only in dark, dirty corners by men who were obviously "scummy" to being so hyper-ready to see victims (and still often the wrong types of people) that a lot of people were falsely accused.

Some of the early cases that brought this more to peoples minds -- the McMartin preschool case is one that I can recall by name, but there were several about that same time (within a few years of that case) that made huge headlines, resulted in a lot of education and progress to the sysystem in many ways.. but ironically also wound up being false charges. THAT is the framework under which these priests were protected. NOTE.. I am not saying that this excuses the actions, BUT I am saying that folks have a strong tendency to jump to conclusions when the issue is sexual abuse of kids. Caution IS warranted.

ALSO, a lot of attitudes have changed about how to treat these individuals. We went from "string them up.. period" to "let's find the problem and fix it, so the person can return to society". Only now are we realzing that something else might be the answer -- that we probably do need to lock these folks up for a very long time, if not forever.

Anyway, my point is that Priests and Bishops are human and make mistakes. They are more insulated from many realities, including particularly matters of sex. Given all the hoopla and mixed messages "out there" up until very, very recently, it would be easy for them to think that all they had to do was just put priests into a new venue or even to essentially disbelieve the accusations. Note, now, that would not be the case. I cannot see any reasonable person taking those same actions today. However, judging the past actions in that frame is just wrong. You have to judge based on what was happening at the time.

So, that is one part.

The second part is that a church is not just "an organization". Nor is it limited by the people involved in it, even at a leadership level. Church is about God. I won't get into Roman Catholic theology much because I am not Roman Catholic and no doubt will state some things wrong, but essentially, the structure of the church and how it operates is believed to be set forth by God. People within the church can and do fail.. many times, but the church itself is greater than that, is beyond the failings of any individual.

Now.. if you are talking scouts... we have a different issue. However, in that case I have not seen an overall pervasive sense of permissiveness. Instead, we have seen a few aberrations-- terrible, with consequences, but aberrations, not "the norm".

In fac, in both cases, the incidents were relatively few compared to the overall numbers of priests/leaders. Too many, even one is too many, but the fact is that if you have a few thousand of any individuals in anything, a few will be terrible, terrible individuals. You cannot judge an organization by a few bad leaders.

Timminz wrote:What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

I don't understand this at all, because I have never felt anything similar. To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation in order to keep doing it.

I don't mean that to be a slight upon you personally (or any others who feel the same way), I just honestly have no basis for comparison. Is it because you'd be shunned by friends and family?

I guess that means your opinion is that my participation at mass as a parishoner means I support (financially, morally, and otherwise) child molestation. I can't really wrap my mind around that and perhaps that's where the discussion should go. It is not really a personal attack, I suppose, because you really don't have a basis for comparison. But I can maybe help with that.

There are numerous instances in history and right now where people directly or indirectly financially (or otherwise) supported immoral acts. I've noted only one other above. There does not seem to be the same outrage or the same accusations of supporting some horrible act. In some instances, there are even defenses of these positions.

For example, you will rarely hear or see a reasonable individual, such as yourself, say or type something like that "To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation [by going to Penn State University] or murder of innocent civilians [by voting for either presidential candidate] or torture [by voting for either presidential candidate]."

TGD, when you donate to your local church, what percent goes to the Vatican?

Timminz wrote:What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

I don't understand this at all, because I have never felt anything similar. To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation in order to keep doing it.

I don't mean that to be a slight upon you personally (or any others who feel the same way), I just honestly have no basis for comparison. Is it because you'd be shunned by friends and family?

I guess that means your opinion is that my participation at mass as a parishoner means I support (financially, morally, and otherwise) child molestation. I can't really wrap my mind around that and perhaps that's where the discussion should go. It is not really a personal attack, I suppose, because you really don't have a basis for comparison. But I can maybe help with that.

There are numerous instances in history and right now where people directly or indirectly financially (or otherwise) supported immoral acts. I've noted only one other above. There does not seem to be the same outrage or the same accusations of supporting some horrible act. In some instances, there are even defenses of these positions.

For example, you will rarely hear or see a reasonable individual, such as yourself, say or type something like that "To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation [by going to Penn State University] or murder of innocent civilians [by voting for either presidential candidate] or torture [by voting for either presidential candidate]."

TGD, when you donate to your local church, what percent goes to the Vatican?

No idea. According to latest diocesen data, 0%. There are special collections occasionally which will provide money to the Vatican. Think of my church as a third or fourth tier subsidiary of the Vatican holding company. We may occasionally pay a dividend to our immediate corporate shareholder (who may then pay to its immediate corporate shareholder after paying expenses, and so forth). My shareholder may send my dividend to a brother-sister parish (if that parish is poorer). Many of the Philadelphia parishes (in the city) are quite poor.

I can't deny that the opinions that some people have of Catholic parishoners with respect to the child abuse cover up annoys me. I guess my question (which I probably didn't make clear in the last post) is that I do not understand the difference you make between Catholic parishoners and other members of other organizations. Why is the Catholic parishoner's only acceptable choice to leave the Catholic church? I'm not suggesting that the alternative is to accept and condone the cover-up and defense of alleged child abusers; after all, these abuses happened to parishoners and/or their children. I'm suggesting there are other alternatives that can be pursued. Apparently many others in the forum don't agree and I'm trying to figure out why they don't agree.

I guess I just assumed that a parishoner had less sway over the Catholic church (practically nil) than an American citizen has over their government (very slightly more than nil). Maybe I'm wrong.

thegreekdog wrote:From my perspective leaving the Catholic Church would be akin to leaving my family or my country (I guess, although I'm not really a nationalist kind of guy)... perhaps leaving my wife would be an apt description as well. For me, it would be incredibly painful and difficult. I'm not sure I can explain it well enough for you to understand.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're right: I'll never fully understand that kind of attachment to any organization.

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:How many people within the leadership of an organization have to sexually abuse children (or protect those who do, from prosecution) before supporting that organization is seen as condoning the abuse, in some way?

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that the organization is currently condoning the abuse.

The premise is that there are many people within leadership positions of the organization who have been implicated in the abuse, and even more who have protected the perpetrators of that abuse. There's nothing to disagree with, it's true.

Edited for terrible formatting.

Last edited by Timminz on Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Timminz wrote:The premise is that there are many people within leadership positions of the organization who have been implicated in the abuse, and even more who have protected the perpetrators of that abuse. There's nothing to disagree with, it's true.

Right. But you've offered two choices: continue with the organization and therefore condone child abuse and the protection of child abusers or leave the organization. I don't think these are the two choices. The organization is attempting to impose guidelines that it should have imposed well before 2006. These guidelines are probably a direct response to the outcries of parishoners (and not external pressures). So, I guess there is a third choice - continue with the organization and attempt to fix the problem. Do you not agree that there is a third choice? Can one be a Catholic parishoner and not condone child abuse and the protection of child abusers by being a member of the organization?

Let me use another example - There's probably more child abuse (ad protection of child abusers) occurring in public schools than in the Catholic Church. And that doesn't make what the Catholic Church is doing right, but there is not the same hue and cry from the general public about public school abuse. I'm trying to understand why the Catholic Church is different. Why are Catholic Church parishoners maligned for staying with the organization and attempting to change it when public school teachers, administrators and the general public not criticized for the same thing?

TGD. If you vote for a person who is ok with drone attacks then you might as well be the one pulling the trigger as you are OK with killing people.As for the Catholic Church goes if you continue to support through attendance or offerings you are guilty as well since that person continues to support their actions. I have a problem with labels. If you declare yourself to be lets say a republican or democrats you are then restricted to the leaders views. I believe in a God and don't associate myself to any particular sect.Same goes for political views. Thats why I done vote since I cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with a person or organization.

[quote="thegreekdog] Why are Catholic Church parishoners maligned for staying with the organization and attempting to change it when public school teachers, administrators and the general public not criticized for the same thing?[/quote]

It would be helpful to know who is maligning the loyal (or whatever) Catholics?and how these Catholics are trying to change to the church?

warmonger1981 wrote:TGD. If you vote for a person who is ok with drone attacks then you might as well be the one pulling the trigger as you are OK with killing people.As for the Catholic Church goes if you continue to support through attendance or offerings you are guilty as well since that person continues to support their actions. I have a problem with labels. If you declare yourself to be lets say a republican or democrats you are then restricted to the leaders views. I believe in a God and don't associate myself to any particular sect.Same goes for political views. Thats why I done vote since I cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with a person or organization.

That is the question (and an answer).

warmonger1981 wrote:TGD My last post is not directed at you personally when I say "you".

It was directed at me personally (because I fall into the Catholic bucket of your answer), but I'm not going to moan about it. I would direct you to my responses to Timminz for how I would answer your answer.

thegreekdog wrote: Why are Catholic Church parishoners maligned for staying with the organization and attempting to change it when public school teachers, administrators and the general public not criticized for the same thing?

It would be helpful to know who is maligning the loyal (or whatever) Catholics?and how these Catholics are trying to change to the church?

(1) Well, let's say people that frequent this forum and, I suppose, local and national (and I guess international) media.(2) By discussing their concerns with priests, bishops, archbishops and the like. By threatening to leave the church. By demanding action be taken with respect to accused priests. Mostly the last one, but pretty much all three. And really, that's what I'm not understanding. I don't understand where this idea that parishoners are saying, "Oh well, another child abuse scandal..." comes from or why it holds so much weight and authority. I don't get what more Catholic parishoners are supposed to do or why the only vindication for parishoners is to quit the church. Doesn't really make sense to me in the context of other organizations. I understand why the virtiol exists for the church leaders and the organization itself - there is a lot of hypocrisy in how the leaders and the organization relay their message.

thegreekdog wrote:Let me use another example - There's probably more child abuse (ad protection of child abusers) occurring in public schools than in the Catholic Church. And that doesn't make what the Catholic Church is doing right, but there is not the same hue and cry from the general public about public school abuse. I'm trying to understand why the Catholic Church is different. Why are Catholic Church parishoners maligned for staying with the organization and attempting to change it when public school teachers, administrators and the general public not criticized for the same thing?

Why do you say this? (bolded) I'm not aware of any widespread allegations within public schools, such as there are regarding the Catholic church.

Also, I would say (from my view as a life-long atheist) that going without religion is far less onerous than going without education. Taken to the extreme, abolishing public education would probably have much larger negative consequences on society than abolishing the Catholic church would have.